(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Internet Standard
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
It defines the actual mechanism and propose a default algorithm for
the SIP? Overload Control Mechanism
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Yes.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
Overload occurs in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) networks when
SIP servers have insufficient resources to handle all SIP messages
they receive. Even though the SIP protocol provides a limited
overload control mechanism through its 503 (Service Unavailable)
response code, SIP servers are still vulnerable to overload. This
document defines the protocol for communicating overload information
between SIP servers and clients, so that clients can reduce the
volume of traffic sent to overloaded servers, avoiding congestion
collapse and increasing useful throughput.
Working Group Summary:
This document was originally started by an ad-hoc Design Team within
the SIPPING wg. The document was then adopted by the SIP Overload
Control WG once it has been created.
There has been 13 versions of the document of the document since it
has?been adopted as WG item, and the document has passed two
WGLC?one in March 2012
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00731.html)
and a second one in February 2013
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00911.html).
All the issues and the feedback raised have been addressed, and the
wg is now happy with the status.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
I am not aware of any.
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement
the specification?
Yes, all the major vendors have indicated they have a plan to
implement it.
Moreover also 3GPP is supporting it and it will be referenced in its
spec.
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?
No
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document is clear and very well written.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I don't have any concern about the document. The process has been a
bit slow but the document is really solid now, it has passed 2 WGLCs
that have?generated several comments, feedback and the authors have
discussed and?eventually fixed all of them.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.
No.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.
I don't have any particular concern with this document.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
No!
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
This document has received unanimous consensus from all the wg
participants.?Even if the number of participants in the wg has been
always quite low.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
I haven't identified any nit.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
does not apply.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No. All the normative references are already RFCs.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the WG considers it unnecessary.
No.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The IANA consideration section is consistent with the body of the
document. All? the four new parameters for the SIP Via header for
overload control are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries.
The wg has also discussed about the opportunity to establish for the
"oc-algo" parameter
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00925.html
), but there is a wg consensus on not to do it
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00935.html
)
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.